The Esoteric Knowledge Gambit

[KCfromNC]

It may or may not point to the supernatural. It may not even be unexplainable depending on what one wants to accept for explanation. If I say I've felt a "presence" there are lots of atheists who'll explain it (or explain it away) with normal, natural processes of psychology, even if they can't be very specific.


Well we're talking here about what individuals may experience internally, not about figuring out lightning or earthquakes.

I guess I don't see why you'd assume that feelings have anything to do with the supernatural, either.

 

[Dre Khipov]

How else is evidence acquired if not by some method? When applied to certain questions, some methods produce better evidence than others.

Again, the "better evidence" you are talking about is provisional and subjective. It can talk for and against the model in different scopes of explanation. When explanation changes, nothing inherently changes in the scope of any given piece of data. It doesn't magically become "worse evidence" when it was previously "better evidence". Again, there is no clear demarcation... and you are really trying hard to twist it into one. I commend your efforts

In other words, it's about how well the evidence supports the model. Thank-you.

Again, you are only proving my point here. I present you with evidence that you are incorrect in your assertion, and you turn around and interpret it as evidence for you being correct . Lol.

It is about how well the evidence supports the model, but the evidence is secondary to the model itself. Without model, the evidence is just a piece of junk no-one cares for. There is no "better evidence" you are talking about. There are only better explanations. In QM, for example, there are competing explanation for the same evidence and data. What better evidence are you talking about in that case? Some set of scientists prefer one explanation over the other in scope of their personal understanding and experience.

 

[KCfromNC]

Even if God were to introduce Himself to an atheist and raise a dead person from the grave as proof of His existence, the atheist can still deny that God exists. The atheist might say to himself, "There has to be another explanation for this." From there, it's easy for the atheist to think up something else to explain it, especially since today's secular relativism philosophy denies the possibility of knowing that anything is real. So think about how hard it is for a Christian to convince an atheist of a personal spiritual experience that we had with God and our ongoing spiritual relationship with Him.

Think of how much easier it would be if there was any actual evidence for their god. Then they wouldn't have to make excuses like the post I'm replying to.

 

[KCfromNC]

Again, the "better evidence" you are talking about is provisional and subjective.

You claim this, and yet I can look around here in reality and see that there are any number of fields which have no problem getting a consensus on what good evidence is and isn't.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Again, the "better evidence" you are talking about is provisional and subjective.

Provisional, yes. But subjective? How so?

It can talk for and against the model in different scopes of explanation. When explanation changes, nothing inherently changes in the scope of any given piece of data. It doesn't magically become "worse evidence" when it was previously "better evidence". Again, there is no clear demarcation... and you are really trying hard to twist it into one. I commend your efforts

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

Again, you are only proving my point here. I present you with evidence that you are incorrect in your assertion, and you turn around and interpret it as evidence for you being correct . Lol.

What evidence have you presented? To be frank, it's not even clear what you are claiming. You are drawing meaningless distinctions in what seems like a futile attempt to argue that evidence is ultimately inconsequential to whether a given idea should be accepted.

It is about how well the evidence supports the model, but the evidence is secondary to the model itself. Without model, the evidence is just a piece of junk no-one cares for.

Ummm... okay.

There is no "better evidence" you are talking about. There are only better explanations. In QM, for example, there are competing explanation for the same evidence and data.

You are again conflating evidence with data. They are not the same.

What better evidence are you talking about in that case? Some set of scientists prefer one explanation over the other in scope of their personal understanding and experience.

Not going to comment on that case because I'm not familiar enough with the relevant data and models to be able to thoughtfully discern what constitutes evidence in that example.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Who qualifies the adequate quality of evidence and on which bases?

Ideally, people with relevant expertise. In the real world, it's often people without. The bases depend on the nature of the evidence, e.g. ranging from remote hearsay to the results of well designed & controlled experiment. For the former, priors alone will determine the assessment; for the latter, examination of the hypothesis, design, methodology, data analysis and conclusions will complement the priors.

You can start with "Dark Matter", for example, or any other distant theorized entities or properties derived from scientific necessity for something to be there to hold explanations together.

Dark Matter isn't an explanation, it's a label for unexplained observations under investigation ('Dark' because it doesn't radiate, 'Matter' because it behaves like a distribution of mass). In what sense do you think it's supernatural? It isn't something to hold explanations together, it's observation that needs explanation.

Sure, but by such means of demarcation you are disqualifying things that we've never experienced and can't will not experience directly.

I'm not disqualifying anything - that can only be done by explicit falsification; there's a difference between assessing a low probability and disqualification. In the case of claims of the miraculous, paranormal, or supernatural, there are often mundane explanations with a high prior probability. They may appear to devalue or disqualify the claim, but they are explanations of it; conversely, the descriptive labels 'miraculous', 'paranormal', or 'supernatural' explicitly deny explanation.

Strings like strings in string theory would have to be discarded outright by means of your logic..

Not at all. String Theory is an extended model or framework based on the mathematics of our most successful physical model - as such it's priors are impeccable.

Typically, in philosophy of science, the elegance of explanations trumps the evidence.

I don't agree; for example, Feynman and Gell-Mann both said that theoretical elegance is an important consideration, and should be taken into account, but Feynman famously said, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

By calling it "collective subjective" you are not really getting rid of the problem, you merely distribute it among larger population.

Who called it "collective subjective" other than you?

 

[Dre Khipov]

Provisional, yes. But subjective? How so?

Subjective, because it's subjected to personal interpretation and bias... without exception. Such is the nature of our perception and experience. There is no way around it. There are ways to minimize it using methodology, but such methodology isn't accessible and can't be applied uniformly to all of the sciences.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

I think it's quite obvious that you don't .

Evidence is a support that's subject to interpretation in a scope of any given model. It doesn't directly and objectively points to anything outside of any given model.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Again, the "better evidence" you are talking about is provisional and subjective. It can talk for and against the model in different scopes of explanation. When explanation changes, nothing inherently changes in the scope of any given piece of data. It doesn't magically become "worse evidence" when it was previously "better evidence". Again, there is no clear demarcation... and you are really trying hard to twist it into one. I commend your efforts .

There are all kinds of "better evidence" and "worse evidence" depending on what field and what kind of evidence we're examining. For example...

In a court of law, DNA evidence is regarded as far better (because of accuracy) than eyewitness testimony. Our ability to carefully collect and precisely match DNA evidence has only made it more reliable and therefore more valuable to a crime investigation. Eyewitness testimony, on the other hand, has been repeatedly shown to be unreliable it's value varies wildly from case to case.

Regarding historical research, primary sources are universally accepted as far more valuable than secondary sources. They generally contain far more useful information about a historical subject. Secondary sources are still valuable....just nowhere near as good as primary sources.

In nearly every "hard" science...testable evidence is far better than purely observational evidence. I don't really need to explain why that is....do I?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Subjective, because it's subjected to personal interpretation and bias... without exception. Such is the nature of our perception and experience. There is no way around it. There are ways to minimize it using methodology, but such methodology isn't accessible and can't be applied uniformly to all of the sciences.

The quality of the evidence depends on the minimisation of bias. In the example I introduced earlier, that's what makes the evidence used by the latter doctor better than the "gut feelings" relied upon by the former.

I think it's quite obvious that you don't .

One can blame the author or the reader. In this case, I think it's the author who deserves the blame.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Think of how much easier it would be if there was any actual evidence for their god. Then they wouldn't have to make excuses like the post I'm replying to.

Are you a relativist? Or do you reject relativism?

 

[Dre Khipov]

The quality of the evidence depends on the minimisation of bias. In the example I introduced earlier, that's what makes the evidence used by the latter doctor better than the "gut feelings" relied upon by the former.

Minimizing bias in which scope? In scope of other doctors? Again, you don't present a clear cut demarcation here. Would minimizing bias in Astrology or Dianetics work the same way?

You are running to the things that don't work in the way you'd expect these to. These don't. That's why we have things like game theory, because results don't always follow certain presuppositional assumptions we may approach any subjects.

One can blame the author or the reader. In this case, I think it's the author who deserves the blame.

I wouldn't expect you to have any other opinion in this case

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I love this game. It's the "you won't understand unless you adhere to my religion game otherwise it's just nonsense" game

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm talking about the conduit through which knowledge passes. There's knowledge that passes through the senses, and then there's knowledge that bypasses the senses.

It's data that passes through conduits, senses or otherwise. When you understand what it means it becomes information, and when you've assimilated that information it becomes knowledge.

I'm trying to think of a decent example... Like an audio signal passes through speaker wire whereas AC voltage passes through a power cable. If you want to get AC voltage from point A to point B you need a power cable; even though you may have speaker wire, it won't work.

Of course it will work; cable is cable - and electrical audio signal is AC too. You can run power to a bedside light with speaker cable. Power cable is usually thicker than speaker cable because it's likely to carry higher current. So, not a decent example...

In a similar way, there's knowledge that passes through the senses, but there's knowledge that passes through the spirit. The spirit of the believer can handle this knowledge, but the spirit of the unbeliever cannot. (There are two different types of spirit.)

Only two types of spirit? If your spirit example matches your cable example, both spirit types can handle both kinds of knowledge, and both kinds of knowledge are basically the same

So what type of spirit does an agnostic have? or a believer who's having doubts or losing faith? At what point does one type of spirit become the other? What are the signs & symptoms of switching spirit type?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Objectively, it would still be disregarded by skeptics.

I don't see why. One can assess the evidence and generate a number of explanations, with varying probabilities, that could account for the claim. Based on known priors, I would expect the supernatural one to have the lowest probability, and, depending on the verifiable details (e.g. whether there was a tragedy, whether you did hide, etc.), others could include, subconscious prompting, deliberate fabrication, coincidence, reflex, faulty recall, auditory hallucination, etc.; all of which could be consistent with the anecdote and have numerous verified instances in other situations.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think I was responding to the claim that the "quality of the evidence is the decisive factor".

That wasn't my claim, it's a misrepresentation. I said, "The quality of the evidence allows us to assess the quality of the claim."

... string theory doesn't have the "quality of evidence" that FrumiousBandersnatch would take as a standard.

I haven't proposed any standard for quality of evidence.

With respect, if you want to quote me, then do so. Please don't misquote me, put words in my mouth, or misrepresent what I have said. If you don't understand what I meant, just ask.

 

[Chesterton]

I've been there. I remember a thread I made regarding the way I had begun to view the concept of "self"...and since I'm no philosopher, it took more than a couple attempts before I think anyone fully understood me. Still, it's a wide gap between hard to explain and unexplainable..

TheCadet beat me to it. I was going to mention LSD/shroom experiences. Never did it myself but of course I've read about it. I had friends who did it and just because it's interesting, I'd try to get them to explain the things I've heard are experienced - ego death, important insights into reality, coming to know your own mind. They'd seriously try to explain, but it just sounded like gobbledygook even though I trusted it was real to them.

No one who does this gambit ever seems to present any. It wouldn't be a frustrating experience if they did...and I wouldn't have made this thread.

I don't know exactly how the conversations have gone with you, but I can understand, that would be frustrating for any of us.

I may agree on your characterization of him if I had read his works. Just because one is dim in one field of knowledge doesn't mean one is dim in all of them. I was only referring to the quote you provided.

There's a couple of ways to dissect that quote. One is very long where I break it down into individual statements and point out all the logical fallacies that are contained therein. False equivocations, appeals to popularity, shifting the burden of proof and so on are basically riddled throughout the entire quote. I understand it's his opinion...but he's stating his opinion as an argument in defense of a position. I'm not going to break down his quote this way though...I'm going to opt for the shorter way...

By saying he's full of it lol. Seriously though, he seems to be making the argument that he accepts any claims of a supernatural nature as long as they're made by an eyewitness. I don't think he does. He is a Catholic, after all, is he not? If I were to wager, I'd say he probably rejects are far far greater number of supernatural claims than he ever lends any credence to....simply because they are incompatible with his faith. He picked some rather safe examples in "ghosts" and "miracles" because they don't require any reconciliation with his Catholicism. Chances are though, he doesn't believe that a thugee cultist is actually murdering and robbing people because Kali told him to do so.

No, the world of supernatural claims is far and wide and the few that he accepts on simple testimony creates but a narrow and unforgiving path through the world of supernatural claims. It's a nice try...but he's either outright lying or he hasn't fully considered the magnitude of what he's claiming to accept.

According to the OP, you're saying you don't accept the EKG because people don't/can't explain the knowledge, and so you conclude that the knowledge doesn't exist. It's similar to the question of the existence of God itself. If I ask you to believe in God but I can't describe Him fully and concretely, then you won't believe. But it's a doctrinal position you're taking, not based on evidence, but on perceived lack of evidence.

And I don't mean to nit-pick over your word choice, but you called it "esoteric", and then disbelieve it because it's esoteric. If it actually is esoteric, you can't really disbelieve it on that ground.

 

[Chesterton]

Then just say it and let the chips fall where they may.

People do that. According to many atheists, the chips simply fall on the side of "you're delusional" (or something like that).

If you are failing to make a successful rational argument that can be evaluated by other people because your evidence depends on what is subjective to yourself, just admit to that. You wouldn't be getting anywhere playing the mysticism game mentioned in the OP. You would simply be admitting that you don't actually have a rational argument, and you are really only presenting a "personal truth" of yours.

Yeah, I noted that with Ana, that I don't do that and I think it's probably better that Christians don't do that for the benefit of atheists who are doctrinally disposed to disbelieve them no matter what they say.

 

[Chesterton]

This is very unreasonable. You haven't presented the claims, you haven't done anything to explain them, and you haven't heard my response. And still, you insist that I will reject them, and that this rejection will be unjustified? Why? That's very unreasonable.

It's not unreasonable simply because I'm familiar with contemporary atheistic thought.

 

[Ana the Ist]

TheCadet beat me to it. I was going to mention LSD/shroom experiences. Never did it myself but of course I've read about it. I had friends who did it and just because it's interesting, I'd try to get them to explain the things I've heard are experienced - ego death, important insights into reality, coming to know your own mind. They'd seriously try to explain, but it just sounded like gobbledygook even though I trusted it was real to them.

I don't know exactly how the conversations have gone with you, but I can understand, that would be frustrating for any of us.

According to the OP, you're saying you don't accept the EKG because people don't/can't explain the knowledge, and so you conclude that the knowledge doesn't exist. It's similar to the question of the existence of God itself. If I ask you to believe in God but I can't describe Him fully and concretely, then you won't believe. But it's a doctrinal position you're taking, not based on evidence, but on perceived lack of evidence.

And I don't mean to nit-pick over your word choice, but you called it "esoteric", and then disbelieve it because it's esoteric. If it actually is esoteric, you can't really disbelieve it on that ground.

I don't believe it's esoteric...the claimant does. That's why I came up with the name EKG. If I were to create a name for it based on my views of it...it would be a less polite version of horse-dooky.

Take the example of dysert from his posts in this thread...

He starts off from the basic position I outlined in my OP. The position that he's in possession of some truth/knowledge that he couldn't possibly explain to me because I'm not spiritual. He explains that it's not even knowledge that can be conveyed to me, it can only be conveyed "spiritually".

I ask him a few questions to cut through the nonsensical nature of his position...and he eventually reaches the point where he's admitting that he understands this "spiritual knowledge" the same way he understands most types of knowledge...through words. Once we get to that point together...he does exactly what he claimed he couldn't do on the first page. He shares some of his spiritual knowledge to me, an unbeliever, with mere words.

There's plenty of reasons why he made his initial claim about having access to this unique/special type of knowledge that we can now speculate about since we have an example of it. For my part, I think that he genuinely believed his initial claim...even if he didn't quite understand the absurdity of it. Such speculation is another matter entirely though...

You mentioned belief in god as an analogy for the EKG...I think it's a poor analogy, but maybe you can elaborate on it to connect the dots a little better. You seem to think that I don't believe in god because of your (or believers in general) inability to describe a god completely. That's not the case at all...all I need in order to rationally consider the existence of a god is some basic explanation of what a god is. I don't need the encyclopedia of gods. I'm not sure where you got this idea from...but perhaps your mention of a "doctrine" I supposedly hold is the clue here. What doctrine are you talking about? That it's illogical/irrational to hold beliefs without any evidence?

 

[The Cadet]

important insights into reality

If someone is getting their important insights from drugs, there is a problem.